Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Thursday, June 03, 2010

Time to breathe, open thread

I've blogged a lot over the past few days - 57 posts since Monday, in fact.

And I've gotten a lot of hits, too - 26,000 or so since Monday morning. In fact, my total number of page views has passed 1.5 million today.

Not to mention that the YouTube video of the IDF officer being stabbed has passed 150,000 views. (YouTube even asked me if I want to put ads on it. I politely declined.)

The post where I translated the Danish reporter's article looking for Gaza's "humanitarian crisis" (h/t Suzanne) has been getting more and more readers, establishing itself as a bona-fide meme as it gets spread to lots of web pages and articles. The "Daniel in the lion's den" video is close behind.

Memeorandum, a site that follows major news stories by how they are followed by blogs, has linked to my posts at least a half-dozen times over the past two days.

About a hundred new people follow me on Twitter and a couple of dozen have joined the blog, to take advantage of incredible benefits that I still cannot quite articulate.

And my total earnings from my feeble attempts to monetize the blog without intruding on the blog experience is still stuck at 62 cents.

If you want to spread my posts further, please place the ones you like on Reddit or one of the other popular bookmark sites. Occasionally, links from there catch on fire and get a ton of views. You can also feel free to link back to my posts in the comment threads of popular blogs and newspapers, which gets an entirely new audience exposed to what I would modestly characterize as a more truthful point of view than they are exposed to from the mainstream media.

But throughout all the craziness, I haven't put up any of the all-important open threads.

I intend to make up for that oversight right..........NOW.

Don't forget to read my tweets

I come across a number of items that I can't blog fully at the time I see them, but I often tweet them. Keep up to date by reading my tweets on the right sidebar, or using a Twitter client, or simply going to my Twitter page.

(I am not big on having Twitter conversations, so don't bother to ask me questions on Twitter. But by all means re-tweet items that you find interesting. I'm still seeing re-tweets from things I posted two days ago.)

Bibi's speech (updated with video)

As Barry Rubin writes, "It is so full of common sense and clear statements that the entire text should be read."

Once again, Israel faces hypocrisy and a biased rush to judgment. I’m afraid this isn’t the first time.

Last year, Israel acted to stop Hamas from firing thousands of rockets into Israel’s towns and cities. Hamas was firing on our civilians while hiding behind civilians. And Israel went to unprecedented lengths to avoid Palestinian civilian casualties. Yet it was Israel, and not Hamas, that was accused by the UN of war crimes.

Now regrettably, the same thing appears to be happening now.

But here are the facts. Hamas is smuggling thousands of Iranian rockets, missiles and other weaponry – smuggling it into Gaza in order to fire on Israel’s cities. These missiles can reach Ashdod and Beer Sheva – these are major Israeli cities. And I regret to say that some of them can reach now Tel Aviv, and very soon, the outskirts of Jerusalem. From the information we have, the planned shipments include weapons that can reach farther, even farther and deeper into Israel.

Under international law, and under common sense and common decency, Israel has every right to interdict this weaponry and to inspect the ships that might be transporting them.

This is not a theoretical challenge or a theoretical threat. We have already interdicted vessels bound for Hezbollah, and for Hamas from Iran, containing hundreds of tons of weapons. In one ship, the Francop, we found hundreds of tons of war materiel and weapons destined for Hezbollah. In another celebrated case, the Karine A, dozens of tons of weapons were destined for Hamas by Iran via a shipment to Gaza. Israel simply cannot permit the free flow of weapons and war materials to Hamas from the sea.

I will go further than that. Israel cannot permit Iran to establish a Mediterranean port a few dozen kilometers from Tel Aviv and from Jerusalem. And I would go beyond that too. I say to the responsible leaders of all the nations: The international community cannot afford an Iranian port in the Mediterranean. Fifteen years ago I cautioned about an Iranian development that has come to pass – people now recognize that danger. Today I warn of this impending willingness to enable Iran to establish a naval port right next to Israel, right next to Europe. The same countries that are criticizing us today should know that they will be targeted tomorrow.

For this and for many other reasons, we have a right to inspect cargo heading into Gaza.

And here’s our policy. It's very simple: Humanitarian and other goods can go in and weapons and war materiel cannot.

And we do let civilian goods into Gaza. There is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Each week, an average of ten thousand tons of goods enter Gaza. There's no shortage of food. There's no shortage of medicine. There's no shortage of other goods.On this occasion too, we made several offers – offers to deliver the goods on board the flotilla to Gaza after a security inspection. Egypt made similar offers. And these offers were rejected time and again.

So our naval personnel had no choice but to board these vessels. Now, on five of the vessels, our seamen were not met by any serious violence and as a result, there were no serious injuries aboard those ships. But on the largest ship, something very different happened.

Our naval personnel, just as they landed on the ship – you can see this in the videos – the first soldier – they were met with a vicious mob. They were stabbed, they were clubbed, they were fired upon. I talked to some of these soldiers. One was shot in the stomach, one was shot in the knee. They were going to be killed and they had to act in self-defense.

It is very clear to us that the attackers had prepared their violent action in advance. They were members of an extremist group that has supported international terrorist organizations and today support the terrorist organization called Hamas. They brought with them in advance knives, steel rods, other weapons. They chanted battle cries against the Jews. You can hear this on the tapes that have been released.

This was not a love boat. This was a hate boat. These weren't pacifists. These weren't peace activists. These were violent supporters of terrorism.

I think that the evidence that the lives of the Israeli seamen were in danger is crystal clear. If you're a fair-minded observer and you look at those videos, you know this simple truth. But I regret to say that for many in the international community, no evidence is needed. Israel is guilty until proven guilty.

Once again, Israel is told that it has a right to defend itself but is condemned every time it exercises that right. Now you know that a right that you cannot exercise is meaningless. And you know that the way we exercise it – under these conditions of duress, under the rocketing of our cities, under the impending killing of our soldiers – you know that we exercise it in a way that is commensurate with any international standard. I have spoken to leading leaders of the world, and I say the same thing today to the international community: What would you do? How would you stop thousands of rockets that are destined to attack your cities, your civilians, your children? How would your soldiers behave under similar circumstances? I think in your hearts, you all know the truth.

Israel regrets the loss of life. But we will never apologize for defending ourselves. Israel has every right to prevent deadly weapons from entering into hostile territory. And Israeli soldiers have every right to defend their lives and their country.

This may sound like an impossible plea, or an impossible request, or an impossible demand, but I make it anyway: Israel should not be held to a double standard. The Jewish state has a right to defend itself just like any other state.

Looks like a real supporter of the peace activists, no?
And I'm sure that he is referring to the peaceful, introspective form of Jihad.

(But I'm sure he was just mistranslating it from the original Farsi.)

Another pro-peace flotilla protester, so Reuters feels compelled to inform us that it is a toy gun.

Obama gets off easy, comparatively.

The only reason his outreach to the Muslim world isn't working must be because of Israel - here is proof!

Nah, nothing anti-semitic about a sign with an ape wearing a black hat and peyos. All Zionists look that way.

And I'm sure that this sign is just an aberration, just one crazy person who hates Jews - it cannot possibly represent the vast majority of peaceful, moderate Muslims of Indonesia. Right?

Riiiiiight.

Received via email.

Anchorman disgusted by pro-Hamas bias on his station

From the Daily Caller:

What you’ re about to read is perfectly true. I came within a butterfly fart of firing this memo off to my boss this morning in a fit of real rage. But my wife, yet again, intervened.

“You’ve been whining like this for ten years. Just go get a new job,” she said.

“Don’t send that memo!”

She’s right.

I agreed not to push the send button, but only if she let me send the memo to The Daily Caller, minus the names. I hate writing anonymously. Readers who’ve criticized me for it are totally justified. One of these days I’ll reveal myself to readers of The Daily Caller, but until that new job comes, or I’m fired, which is increasingly likely, I don’t want to have to pull my kids out of college because of their father’s selfishness. Here’s the memo that I want to send but – under great duress – can’t.

Dear XXXX,

I’m writing for some clarification about how we are supposed to cover the Gaza flotilla story. If we, as a news organization, are supposed to be acting as a public relations arm of Hamas, or Hezbollah, both internationally recognized terrorist organizations, or if we are supposed to be jumping on the bandwagon of 1930’s style anti-Semitism that’s presently sweeping much of the world, then we are doing a fine job. If we are supposed to be acting as a news organization that covers the story objectively, then our coverage is a travesty and an embarrassment.

...In addition, remarkably, her piece made no mention – absolutely none — of the Israeli perspective in this story. For example:

The widely aired (though not here) video that clearly shows an IDF soldier being tossed over a railing, and others being beaten with sticks, was omitted.

The fact that bullet proof vests and night vision goggles were found among the “humanitarian aid” on the ship was omitted.

IDF video of confiscated knives and metal bars that were apparently used as weapons was omitted.

Information that Israeli soldiers were also wounded and injured was omitted.

Moreover, her piece included no background whatsoever on why Israel’s interception (“attack” as we called it ) of the flotilla would likely have passed muster in any court outside the thug-ridden United Nations.

Read the whole thing.

Local news typically doesn't have any experts on international affairs, so the media meme of Israel-as-aggressor becomes the easy narrative to cover stories that go beyond their own back yard. I saw Adam Shapiro on a local Fox station, answering the halfway decent question of whether he believes that Hamas should have the rights to import weapons, by saying "we are against all violence" - but the anchor didn't follow up to force a yes or no answer.

But Free Gaza and the other "humanitarian" groups of the flotilla are very clear that they want to see Gaza/Hamastan treated like a sovereign nation, which necessarily means the freedom for Hamas to import whatever weapons it desires. (Yesterday's interview with the Amnesty International official showed that this was pretty much their position as well. And this applies to the PA, too)

So we have an entire generation of people supposedly concerned about human rights who feel that the only moral thing that must be done is to have Israel just allow unlimited supplies - including weapons - into Gaza.

It might make them uncomfortable, but, hey, they aren't Hamas' targets.

UN Watch - a lonely voice against the world's hypocrites

Speech at the UN delivered by Hillel Neuer of UN Watch, 2 June 2010:

Mr. President, this debate turns on one question: Was the flotilla humanitarian, or not?

To answer this question, let us first examine the objective of the organizers, and then the means they used.

Evidence of the organizer’s objective can be found in the path they chose, and the path they rejected.

Israel, which in the past 18 months has delivered over 1 million tons of aid to Gaza, offered to receive the flotilla’s cargo in the nearby port of Ashdod, and, after inspection, to deliver it to Gaza. The organizers, however, rejected this offer. Because they wanted to create a political provocation; they were looking for a physical confrontation.

Mr. President, is this a humanitarian path?

Further evidence can be found in their state of mind, as demonstrated by their own words.

Before the ships sailed, supporters chanted “Intifada, Intifada,” and “Khaybar, Khaybar, O Jews, the army of Muhammed will return.” One of them declared that the aim of the flotilla was either of two “good things… achieving martyrdom or reaching Gaza.”

Mr. President, is this a humanitarian state of mind?

Let us also examine the means they used: metal bars, knives, axes, and even guns.

Mr. President, are these humanitarian means?

No. This operation was organized by an extremist group, the IHH, with extensive and documented ties to terrorist groups. Their objective and means had nothing to do with humanitarianism.

Now, seated around me here are representatives of some of the world’s leading humanitarian organizations, from the International Committee of the Red Cross, the UN Refugee Agency, and the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Let us ask them: Are these the ways of humanitarians?

No, Mr. President, the resolution that is before us today — introduced by such countries as Iran, Libya, Saudi Arabia and Sudan — is an insult to the world’s real humanitarians.

Thank you, Mr. President.

The Love Boat

Yesterday, Binyomin Netanyahu said that the Mavi Marama "was no "Love Boat."

Au contraire, Bibi:

(h/t EBoZ)

MJ Rosenberg's lies at HuffPo

When the Huffington Post publishes an article that seeks to expose "pro-Israel lies," you would think that they wouldn't want the article to be filled with lies itself.

But that's just what happened with MJ Rosenberg's latest post.

Just for starters:

The first thing you need to know about the Gaza flotilla disaster is that the intention of the activists on board the ships was to break the Israeli blockade. Delivering the embargoed goods was incidental.

In other words, the activists were like the civil rights demonstrators who sat down at segregated lunch counters throughout the South and refused to leave until they were served. Their goal was not really to get breakfast. It was to end segregation.

That fact is so obvious that it is hard to believe that the "pro-Israel" lobby is using it as an indictment.

The analogy to civil rights breakfasts is absurd. While it is true that when the activists speak amongst themselves they are very clear that they are not aid organizations nor humanitarian organizations - but rather one that supports terror and "resistance" - they presented themselves to the media as an aid flotilla, with 10,000 tons of humanitarian supplies that Gazans are lacking. These were pretty much all lies, with the exception of the cement (which, incidentally, Israel sent more of to Gaza last week than the entire flotilla was bringing.)

They were using the aid to gain respectability, because accurately calling themselves a political or resistance movement would not play well. If anything, the media's obsession with calling them "humanitarians" and "peace activists" shows how much their lies took hold in the press, quite contrary to his assertion that the media is now way too pro-Israel.

As for the Israeli argument that its soldiers were attacked, that is ridiculous. Israeli commandos were ordered to board a civilian ship in international waters and the government that sent them claims that the resisting passengers attacked them without provocation. This is like a carjacker complaining to the police that the driver bashed him with a crowbar that was under the seat. Neither carjackers nor hijackers should expect their victims to acquiesce peacefully.

Except that, under international law, Israel is perfectly within its legal rights to warn ships that are breaking a blockade. Even in international waters. The civilians on the ship have the legal right to attack the soldiers - but by doing so they are no longer considered civilians, but rather combatants, and the soldiers are allowed to fight back. People like Rosenberg love to throw out statements like these to imply that Israel's actions were obviously illegal, but it is just another lie. (And on the other five ships, the activists actually did keep their status as civilians - and no one was killed. Is Rosenberg saying that they were wrong to do so and they should have fought? That would be interesting.)

Rosenberg also conveniently ignores the role of IHH and its terror ties. I guess he realizes that he has no leg to stand on there, so better to ignore the fact that an organization that is known to have smuggled arms to, and recruited members for, terror groups is one of his heroic blockade-busters.

Hamas has repeatedly offered Israel an indefinite cease-fire in exchange for lifting the blockade. And, on a half dozen occasions, Israel accepted the deal but did not live up to its side of it.

Here he gives a link to an aid organization (a real one), but the link does not prove anything close to his claim. How many people assume that a link, like a footnote, actually proves something without checking it out?

The fact is that Israel did live up to its obligations during the cease fire, and the aid that went to Gaza was in exact inverse proportion to the rocket fire coming from Gaza during that weak truce.

In fact, the 2009 war began after Israel ignored its commitments under the Gaza cease-fire agreement, continued the blockade, and then provoked the resumption of attacks on Sderot through a series of targeted assassinations of Palestinians.

See above. Plus there was no "series of targeted assassinations" - in early November Israel killed a number of terrorists while they were building a tunnel into Israel for the purposes of kidnapping Israelis. Was Israel obligated to wait until someone was kidnapped before acting?

Even after the cease fire lapsed, Israel held off from real retaliation - and it was Hamas, not Israel, that started the Gaza war, with its declaration of Operation Oil Stain and its concurrent rocket barrage three days before Cast Lead.

Rosenberg's attempts to paint a rosy and moderate picture of Hamas is absurd and laughable. Its anti-semitic charter - which wants to see Rosenberg as dead as any Zionist - is still in force.

For a guy who is pretending to expose lies, Rosenberg sure seems to spout a lot of them himself.

A "peace activist" brags he wants to be a "shahid"/martyr

From the IDF YouTube channel:

In footage captured on the Gaza flotilla, a passenger describes how he has attempted in previous convoys to become a martyr and that "with god's luck" he will succeed on this flotilla. While the Gaza flotilla passengers had presented themselves as peace activists who would not act violently towards Israeli forces, this provides further evidence to the contrary.

It also proves that the motivations of people on the previous "humanitarian missions" was anything but humanitarian.

Anti-Israel freaks think they caught Israel lying! Too bad they are idiots.

Mondoweiss points to a breathless article that accuses the IDF of faking photos of the non-peaceful items found aboard the Mavi Marmara.

Their main evidence is that the EXIF information from the photographs indicate pictures taken in 2006, or 2003, not 2010.

The claim is absurd on the face of it - why would the IDF bother to fake pictures of bullet-proof vests or saws or pepper spray, when it would make more sense for them to fake pictures of handguns and stun grenades or more lethal weapons? It is far more likely that the digital cameras used to take the photos never had their date/time set - not that the anti-Zionist folks would ever admit to such a simple possibility.

But if you don't believe that explanation, you can see the IDF video of the exact same items, piled the same way, all on display, at the Ashdod port:

I guess that the IDF read the accusations and rushed to manufacture or obtain the items whose photos were taken years ago, to position them for the fake video shoot yesterday!

(h/t anon for the Mondoweiss link)

Correction on the cargo

I wrote that the aid from the flotilla fit in 28 Israeli trucks, and I estimated that this was less than 1500 tons, a far cry from the 10,000 tons that the flotilla organizers claimed.

Well, I was wrong - and I was right.

It turns out that this was only the first set of shipments. According to a COGAT briefing on Wednesday, there will be a total of 70-80 trucks of aid in the end, if Hamas agrees that Gaza actually needs the aid.

However, a commenter points out that because of the haphazard way that the flotilla aid was packed, each truck is almost certainly holding much less than it normally does when flatbeds use pallets. So instead of 25 tons per truck, it is probably closer to 10.

COGAT itself says that the total amount from the flotilla is about the same as one day's worth of aid from Israel, which would be less than 1500 tons anyway.

Either way, Free Gaza and their friends are once again proven to be liars.

Flotilla Fools' narrative falls apart - legal issues

Reuters asks some international law experts whether Israel acted legally, and on all aspects of the operation, they agree that Israel was on solid legal ground:

CAN ISRAEL IMPOSE A NAVAL BLOCKADE ON GAZA?

Yes it can, according to the law of blockade which was derived from customary international law and codified in the 1909 Declaration of London. It was updated in 1994 in a legally recognized document called the "San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea."

Under some of the key rules, a blockade must be declared and notified to all belligerents and neutral states, access to neutral ports cannot be blocked, and an area can only be blockaded which is under enemy control.

"On the basis that Hamas is the ruling entity of Gaza and Israel is in the midst of an armed struggle against that ruling entity, the blockade is legal," said Philip Roche, partner in the shipping disputes and risk management team with law firm Norton Rose.

WHAT ARE INTERNATIONAL WATERS?

Under the U.N. Convention of the Law of the Sea a coastal state has a "territorial sea" of 12 nautical miles from the coast over which it is sovereign. Ships of other states are allowed "innocent passage" through such waters.

There is a further 12 nautical mile zone called the "contiguous zone" over which a state may take action to protect itself or its laws.

"However, strictly beyond the 12 nautical miles limit the seas are the "high seas" or international waters," Roche said.

The Israeli navy said on Monday the Gaza bound flotilla was intercepted 120 km (75 miles) west of Israel. The Turkish captain of one of the vessels told an Istanbul news conference after returning home from Israeli detention they were 68 miles outside Israeli territorial waters.

Under the law of a blockade, intercepting a vessel could apply globally so long as a ship is bound for a "belligerent" territory, legal experts say.

CAN ISRAEL USE FORCE WHEN INTERCEPTING SHIPS?

Under international law it can use force when boarding a ship.

"If force is disproportionate it would be a violation of the key tenets of the use of force," said Commander James Kraska, professor of international law at the U.S. Naval War College.

Israeli authorities said marines who boarded the Turkish vessel Mavi Marmara opened fire in self-defense after activists clubbed and stabbed them and snatched some of their weapons.

Legal experts say proportional force does not mean that guns cannot be used by forces when being attacked with knives.

"But there has got to be a relationship between the threat and response," Kraska said.

The use of force may also have other repercussions.

"While the full facts need to emerge from a credible and transparent investigation, from what is known now, it appears that Israel acted within its legal rights," said J. Peter Pham, a strategic adviser to U.S. and European governments.

OPPONENTS HAVE CALLED ISRAEL'S RAID "PIRACY." WAS IT?

No, as under international law it was considered a state action.

"Whether what Israel did is right or wrong, it is not an act of piracy. Piracy deals with private conduct particularly with a pecuniary or financial interest," Kraska said.

So every single argument by the Free Gaza folks about how illegal Israel's actions were are complete and utter lies.

Like pretty much everything else they say.

(h/t Omri)

Amnesty International official ties himself up in rhetorical knots

There is an amazing interview by Jonathan Dahoah Halevi with Itai Epstein, Director of Amnesty International in Israel.

Amnesty goes under the assumption that Gaza is under Israeli occupation. This makes no sense, because if it is under Israeli occupation, Israel would have the obligation to protect Gazan citizens - even from Hamas. Israel would be responsible for police work, for education, and for all other parts of Gaza's infrastructure. Occupation, by definition, means a physical presence on the ground.

But Amnesty disagrees, and the hoops they have to jump through to maintain a consistent stance with their assertion that Gaza is occupied and their demand that Israel lift the blockade are high indeed. Essentially,

Amnesty is arguing that Israel has no right whatsoever to stop Hamas from acquiring weapons.

Here is part of the interview:

Does Israel have the right to check if there were weapons on the ship?

Had the ship been in Israel’s territorial waters they would have had a right. If the ship were outside Israel’s territorial waters, the answer is no.

What is the reasoning for this claim?

The international law which distinguishes between territorial waters and international waters. Israel, like any other country, has powers within 12 miles of its beaches and 12 additional miles of water adjacent, and beyond these, Israel has no sovereign authority.

Amnesty claims that Israel is still considered an occupying force in Gaza. Does Israel not have the authority to check if weapons which can be put to use by Hamas arrive in Gaza?

Of course we do not back the transferring of weapons to Hamas, which is a violent regime and a violent political group which has committed war crimes. Having said that, I think the issue here is not the transferring of weapons but rather the siege Israel imposes on Gaza,...

The operation was conducted on ships making their way to Gaza. I am asking a question of principle, whether Israel, which you claim is still an occupying force in Gaza, has the authority to check if there are weapons on the ship?

The answer in principle is unrelated to the occupation of Gaza. Gaza is under siege and an Israeli occupation, there is no question about it. Even by Israel’s announcement that it is imposing a siege on Gaza. The question of the search on the ships is related to a different legal question, and that is the question of sovereign authority in territorial waters versus the authority in international waters.

This is a question of principle, since Israel is inspecting for weapons through the land border crossings.

Israel does not check for the possibility of weapons entering through land border crossings. Israel transfers, what little it transfers, on its own.

There is international assistance which arrives and there is also import coming in through the Ashdod Port with weapons and ammunition, and Israel inspects it. The principle question is simple: According to Amnesty’s perception, does Israel even have the authority to check ships headed to Gaza near Gaza’s water and see if they contain weapons?

The answer is very simple. The siege is illegal. All the actions performed as part of the siege are illegal.

With your permission, I’m going back to the question because there is a question of principle regarding the raiding of a ship.

I don’t think that’s a principle question at all. I think the principle question is whether it is permitted to impose a siege on Gaza.

Does Israel have the authority to inspect a ship at a distance of 12 miles from the Gaza shore to see whether there are weapons on it?

It has the authority to do it within Israel’s territorial waters.

Also in Gaza’s waters?

Gaza doesn’t have waters, Gaza is an occupied territory under Israeli rule, it has no territorial waters because it doesn’t have sovereign authority.

What is required of Israel to stop it from being an occupying force under Amnesty’s definition?

That there will be another sovereign power and that the border crossings to Gaza not be under Israeli control. That’s the meaning of occupation, there’s no other sovereign power there, there’s no control over the border crossings for free movement of people and goods and that’s why Gaza is under occupation.

Can Israel not ever close the border crossings to Gaza?

Assuming that another sovereign power will be there, there can be international border crossings. That’s not the situation as of today.

Hamas is defined as a sovereign power by the Goldstone committee which treated it as “the authority of Gaza” and is internationally recognized by a large number of countries.

It receives recognition as a de facto regime. The question of the Israeli occupation is not related to Hamas. It’s connected with Israel’s actions.

So what actions must Israel take? You say that the occupation ends if Israel opens the crossings, so if the occupation ends, Israel needs to close the borders since Gaza is defined as an enemy state. There’s a logical contradiction here.

I don’t understand where the contradiction is.
...

What are all the components to end the occupation? Amnesty does not present a plan in which Israel stops the occupation. It says that Israel needs to stop the occupation and deepen the occupation by opening the borders. I don’t comprehend that.

Amnesty International does not deal with solving conflicts.

It’s not conflict solving. It’s ending the occupation. Amnesty says that Gaza is under occupation. According to Amnesty, what actions must Israel take in order to stop the occupation?

One of the things which need to be done is to allow the passage of people and goods through the air, the sea and land. That’s one component. There are other components related to agreements of the international community since Amnesty International does not deal with solving conflicts. It only addresses the question of whether the situation is adequate in relation to international humanitarian law and international standards. It doesn’t deal with solving the conflict, not here or anywhere else.
...
Amnesty claims that Israel is an occupying country and is responsible for the welfare of Gaza’s residents. According to this definition, does Israel need to act against the Hamas government in order to care for the welfare and safety of Gaza’s residents?

The State of Israel has an obligation to protect its citizens. It has an obligation to distinguish between military targets and civil targets. ...

The question is whether Israel is committed, being an occupying force as Amnesty defines, to be concerned for the welfare of Gaza’s residents and therefore act against the Hamas government and the Palestinian terrorist organizations that control Gaza, in order to protect the Palestinian population?

Israel has a duty to protect its citizens.

Amnesty’s messages said that Israel should take care to protect the people of Gaza. Is the issue of the security of the people of Gaza not an authority which Israel has?

Israel’s duty is to protect its citizens and ensure that the people of Gaza enjoy all the social and economic rights recognized in international law and in the Geneva convention.

So if Hamas is violating the rights of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip to live, as defined in international law, does Israel not have the authority to act against the Hamas government to care for the safety of the people of Gaza?

The problem is first and foremost the rights of the people of Gaza which Israel violates by the illegal siege.

He is being willfully obtuse. The Amnesty official refuses to accept that his interpretation of international law leads to absurd and contradictory (not to mention inhumane) results. When forced to look at the absurdity, he retreats into repeating irrelevant mantras. Israel must open its borders to end the occupation and then it can close them. He says (not quoted here) that Israel's closed border with Lebanon is different because it has border with other countries - pretending that Gaza does not have a border with Egypt.

It is instructive to see that some human rights workers cannot see beyond their own narrow view of human rights and insist on countries adhering to impossible and suicidal policies - because they cannot conceive that their viewpoints are severely flawed at the outset. The irony, of course, is that the human rights of Israelis would be severely compromised by listening to idiots like this guy - and then they would presumably write a couple of highly critical reports condemning the Iranian satellite of Hamastan for continuing to shoot ballistic missiles with chemical weapons towards Tel Aviv. Tsk, tsk.

Free Gaza's nutcase Greta Berlin on CNN-I soon

CNN International has a feature called Connect the World where people can post questions to be answered by newsmakers.

Tonight (or this afternoon, for the US) Greta Berlin will be on the show, along with Israeli government spokesperson Mark Regev.

I asked two questions:

Does the Free Gaza movement fully support the IHH, your Turkish partners who used the iron bars, chains and stun grenades and which has been linked to arms smuggling and support for violent jihadist movements? If not, are you willing to make a statement dissociating Free Gaza from the IHH and their activities?

You wrote in an email to the Free Gaza mailing list yesterday that Israel informed the US and UK that the flotilla had nuclear weapons. Do you stand by that statement?

Someone let me know if my questions are asked.

She is truly crazy, and hopefully Regev can wipe the floor with her.The show will be broadcast at 4 PM New York time, 2100 London time.)

Another anecdote from the Daniel Pipes blog from when Pipes spoke at UCLA a few years ago and Berlin screamed at him during his talk....

I was looking for a seat at the UCLA Daniel Pipes event, and lo and behold, the only seats available were next to Greta Berlin, her buddy Karen Palley and another WIB overaged activist. When I tried to get into the row, Ms. Greta blocked the aisle with her legs so I could not get through (we have had several run in's at protests et al). I asked her politely to please move her legs so I could sit down. She refused. I finally had to tell her this was a public space and I had the right to sit down and would not be intimidated by her. I also told her that I hated sitting next to her, as she felt about sitting next to me. She acted like a child, instead of the 65 plus year old bitch that she is. I knew they had something up and when their T shirts had written on the front "LI" and "ES" on the back. "Lies, get it??? I did not until they disrupted the speakers and were rude and juvenile. They are a bunch of old women .... Sorry, but that is a fact.